• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

'Ethical' binocular companies (1 Viewer)

It is a common trait in discussions where misinformation and ignorance are found.

Oh dear, you just had to torpedo my attempt to lighten the mood and shift the chat in a more harmonious direction, didn't you? It's really not necessary at all. The truth is that it's a common trait whether or not any "misinformation and ignorance" (as you perceive it to be) is involved.
 
There has to be a paper somewhere or Ph.D. opportunity on how and why certain threads like this develop a life of their own and wander so far away from the original topic matter. Perhaps the controversial nature of the subject, the random selection of highly opinionated posters it attracts or just the serendipitous chance of one comment sparking a tangential debate all have a role to play. Whatever the case this one's come a long way from my original attention which was to draw attention to some information that a subset of folks here might find useful or illuminating.

I've never met anybody I thought was worth a damn who wasn't highly opinionated.
 
Oh dear, you just had to torpedo my attempt to lighten the mood and shift the chat in a more harmonious direction, didn't you? It's really not necessary at all. The truth is that it's a common trait whether or not any "misinformation and ignorance" (as you perceive it to be) is involved.


John:

Don't try to dismiss your intent to put a negative on hunting, in your
ethical discussion theme.

Oh Deer, some on here have found you out, and don't try to talk cutesy,
with your arrogant attitude to others on the site. :eat:

Jerry
 
There has to be a paper somewhere or Ph.D. opportunity on how and why certain threads like this develop a life of their own and wander so far away from the original topic matter. Perhaps the controversial nature of the subject, the random selection of highly opinionated posters it attracts or just the serendipitous chance of one comment sparking a tangential debate all have a role to play. Whatever the case this one's come a long way from my original attention which was to draw attention to some information that a subset of folks here might find useful or illuminating.

It is a common trait in discussions where misinformation and ignorance are found.

Oh dear, you just had to torpedo my attempt to lighten the mood and shift the chat in a more harmonious direction, didn't you? It's really not necessary at all. The truth is that it's a common trait whether or not any "misinformation and ignorance" (as you perceive it to be) is involved.

John:

Don't try to dismiss your intent to put a negative on hunting, in your
ethical discussion theme.

Oh Deer, some on here have found you out, and don't try to talk cutesy,
with your arrogant attitude to others on the site. :eat:

Jerry

Guys, you do a disservice here to John. Your perception is off. Totally off - literally.

John has gone out of his way to pussyfoot around on eggshells in a deliberate attempt (successfully so) to be impartial and non-inflammatory in his wording and presentation of this topic. Do you speak for the rest of the HunTing fraternity here? because I find those posts rude and disrespectful to someone who has shown absolutely no ulterior motive (and this despite the plethora of material and opportunity you have given him).

One of the arguments levelled against 'HunTers' is a lack of empathy, and you have demonstrated this in spades here - a true own goal.

John's right in that this thread in-itself is a fascinating study :cat: --- the HunTing 'pack' seemingly emboldened by the lack of volume of opposing argument (don't rejoice your victory just yet - I'm sure most people just could not be bothered wasting their breath with such a closed-minded sooky mob, thinly supported by such logically fragile arguments), think nothing of resorting to seeming bullying - and this with the recruitment of no less than God to their side over Easter! ............ You just couldn't write this sort of stuff! 3:) Honestly, I'm sure you guys in the US have no ideer how you are viewed by the rest of the world. I'll see your 2-3,000 years of archaic historical stories and God bothering and raise you another 37,000 years of Dreamtime ........ :eek!: o:D

Most birders here on BirdForum find the idea of killing abhorent. It doesn't matter what justifications, comparisons with other less than ideal situations, or ethical spin you try and put on it - it is just Murder, and for people to get their jollies out of that is deeply disturbing.

If you macho, hairy-chested HunTers were going head to head with Grizzlies, Lions, Bison, and Rutting Moose armed with nothing more than sharpened sticks and rocks in a fair fight then I don't think there'd be such an outcry ..... I note that none of you have taken up the invitation to start a discussion on HunTing in the appropriate forum of "Ruffled Feathers" ....... :smoke:

I myself am not a complete stranger to stalking, and even have the 'heads' of two kangaroos hanging on my wall ..... it took me 1&1/2 hrs to close in the 150 metres in order to get several clean 'shots' away. It then took me over an hour to remove myself completely unseen with my 'trophy' photographs safely tucked away in my camera -- the two roo's never even knew I was there and happily continued to carry on their grass chewing and lazing around in the shade, day |:d| :t:

I even wonder if any of the HunTing types even read the article John posted with any conviction --- what? No actual on-topic mention of the "Binocular Tax" suggested??! :h?: now I would have thought that would have caused a real uproar!


Chosun :gh:
 
Guys, you do a disservice here to John. Your perception is off. Totally off - literally.

John has gone out of his way to pussyfoot around on eggshells in a deliberate attempt (successfully so) to be impartial and non-inflammatory in his wording and presentation of this topic. Do you speak for the rest of the HunTing fraternity here? because I find those posts rude and disrespectful to someone who has shown absolutely no ulterior motive (and this despite the plethora of material and opportunity you have given him).

One of the arguments levelled against 'HunTers' is a lack of empathy, and you have demonstrated this in spades here - a true own goal.

John's right in that this thread in-itself is a fascinating study :cat: --- the HunTing 'pack' seemingly emboldened by the lack of volume of opposing argument (don't rejoice your victory just yet - I'm sure most people just could not be bothered wasting their breath with such a closed-minded sooky mob, thinly supported by such logically fragile arguments), think nothing of resorting to seeming bullying - and this with the recruitment of no less than God to their side over Easter! ............ You just couldn't write this sort of stuff! 3:) Honestly, I'm sure you guys in the US have no ideer how you are viewed by the rest of the world. I'll see your 2-3,000 years of archaic historical stories and God bothering and raise you another 37,000 years of Dreamtime ........ :eek!: o:D

Most birders here on BirdForum find the idea of killing abhorent. It doesn't matter what justifications, comparisons with other less than ideal situations, or ethical spin you try and put on it - it is just Murder, and for people to get their jollies out of that is deeply disturbing.

If you macho, hairy-chested HunTers were going head to head with Grizzlies, Lions, Bison, and Rutting Moose armed with nothing more than sharpened sticks and rocks in a fair fight then I don't think there'd be such an outcry ..... I note that none of you have taken up the invitation to start a discussion on HunTing in the appropriate forum of "Ruffled Feathers" ....... :smoke:

I myself am not a complete stranger to stalking, and even have the 'heads' of two kangaroos hanging on my wall ..... it took me 1&1/2 hrs to close in the 150 metres in order to get several clean 'shots' away. It then took me over an hour to remove myself completely unseen with my 'trophy' photographs safely tucked away in my camera -- the two roo's never even knew I was there and happily continued to carry on their grass chewing and lazing around in the shade, day |:d| :t:

I even wonder if any of the HunTing types even read the article John posted with any conviction --- what? No actual on-topic mention of the "Binocular Tax" suggested??! :h?: now I would have thought that would have caused a real uproar!


Chosun :gh:
Wow, am I impressed. B :)
 
NDHunter: "Don't try to dismiss your intent to put a negative on hunting, in your
ethical discussion theme. Oh Deer, some on here have found you out, and don't try to talk cutesy,
with your arrogant attitude to others on the site".
jgraider: you and JC are two peas in a pod....misinformed, ignorant, or just plain........?

Jerry, I think I know my intent better than you do. It's simply insulting, and indeed arrogant, to suggest otherwise. I really don't think I've been 'arrogant' here, but I'm always willing to be corrected so do point out where I've been so. If you cannot then I'd be obliged if you'd withdraw the comment and apologise for your unwarranted slur. jgraider - do let me know where I've been "misinformed", "ignorant" or whatever else you had in mind. Similarly, either substantiate the comment or withdraw it and apologise for the insult. I will agree that I was perhaps naive in thinking that, despite my care in phrasing my comments, this thread would be hijacked by pro and anti camps. Perhaps the time has come to close the thread as folks are unable to be civil (and in fairness I mean both camps here as I disapprove of comments some 'antis' have made). However, as this has been made personal please don't close it before my critics have had a chance to either substantiate or withdraw their comments.
 
In all the years I have known John on this forum, I can't say I have ever found him to be anything but polite and well-informed (on matters wide and diverse). On this thread in particular, I fail to identify any areas where John comes across as ignorant or misinformed. But then, I guess I'll be just chucked in that pea pod too.

As for painting a negative image of hunting/hunters, is it really John doing this?
 
Last edited:
I think this thread has been interesting in so many ways. I feel more comfortable with respectful posts though full-on confrontational adds colour. I've found aspects of both sides difficult to agree with and that's fine. Being a non-hunting carnivore who just wants the best binoculars to look through - Zeiss SFs in my case - probably makes me unethical from both sided' points of view. I'm probably in the majority though.
 
There is nothing unethical about an optics company that markets and sell binoculars to law-abiding citizens. The same goes for purchasers of those optics. I suggest people study the field of ethics before blabbering on and on. Some birders are anti-hunting; some are not. So what. Hunting is not murder or the first step on the road to a criminal life. A famous Austrian corporal adopted a vegetarian diet late in life with no effect whatsoever on his moral turpitude. May I suggest all parties drop their stones and get back to birding.
 
NDHunter: "Don't try to dismiss your intent to put a negative on hunting, in your
ethical discussion theme. Oh Deer, some on here have found you out, and don't try to talk cutesy,
with your arrogant attitude to others on the site".
jgraider: you and JC are two peas in a pod....misinformed, ignorant, or just plain........?

Jerry, I think I know my intent better than you do. It's simply insulting, and indeed arrogant, to suggest otherwise. I really don't think I've been 'arrogant' here, but I'm always willing to be corrected so do point out where I've been so. If you cannot then I'd be obliged if you'd withdraw the comment and apologise for your unwarranted slur. jgraider - do let me know where I've been "misinformed", "ignorant" or whatever else you had in mind. Similarly, either substantiate the comment or withdraw it and apologise for the insult. I will agree that I was perhaps naive in thinking that, despite my care in phrasing my comments, this thread would be hijacked by pro and anti camps. Perhaps the time has come to close the thread as folks are unable to be civil (and in fairness I mean both camps here as I disapprove of comments some 'antis' have made). However, as this has been made personal please don't close it before my critics have had a chance to either substantiate or withdraw their comments.

John:

I agree with you, it is time to close the thread. I mentioned that in my
post above, #78.

I stand by all I have posted above. I sense a superior attitude that does
not go well with some on the forum. :smoke:

Jerry
 
Last edited:
NDHunter "I stand by all I have posted above. I sense a superior attitude that does not go well with some on the forum."

I'm saddened that, despite your being entirely unable to point to any word or phrase of mine to demonstrate my supposed "arrogant attitude" or how you "know" my intent better than I do, you persist in your rudeness. I find your intransigence in the light of no evidence other than what you "sense" to be "a superior attitude" disappointing. I allow others to draw what conclusions that they may from your refusal. I do have a number of vegan and strict vegetarian friends who would indeed find the article I posted useful (as might hunters themselves) which is why I thought it might be of interest. They're the same friends I've argued with to defend the broader role of shooting game in the countryside, that it can preserve habitat and that their argument of some sort of superior moral status is an arrogant and spurious, but I suppose you 'sensed' that too.
 
I think the issue that remains is the titling of the article as 'ethical'; calling optics companies that don't market towards hunters more ethical than others implies that those that do market to hunters are less ethical, thereby suggesting hunting (and hunters) to be unethical. It is fine to be opposed to hunting (morally, not scientifically I might add) but to claim hunters to be unethical, as this article does (not saying that you are doing this John Cantelo - you simply posted the article for others to review) is quite discriminatory to the majority of hunters who follow laws and rules designed to encourage ethical, conservation-minded hunting.

JE
 
I think the issue that remains is the titling of the article as 'ethical'; calling optics companies that don't market towards hunters more ethical than others implies that those that do market to hunters are less ethical, thereby suggesting hunting (and hunters) to be unethical. It is fine to be opposed to hunting (morally, not scientifically I might add) but to claim hunters to be unethical, as this article does (not saying that you are doing this John Cantelo - you simply posted the article for others to review) is quite discriminatory to the majority of hunters who follow laws and rules designed to encourage ethical, conservation-minded hunting.

JE

I wouldn't disagree with any of your points, but as the report came from an organisation calling itself the ethical consumer I thought using the word in the thread title was sensible (although as a precaution, which seems not to have worked, I added inverted commas). I've certainly learnt that some here have heightened sensibilities on the topic of hunting so that what was a discussion rapidly became a minefield!
 
I think the issue that remains is the titling of the article as 'ethical'; calling optics companies that don't market towards hunters more ethical than others implies that those that do market to hunters are less ethical, thereby suggesting hunting (and hunters) to be unethical. It is fine to be opposed to hunting (morally, not scientifically I might add) but to claim hunters to be unethical, as this article does (not saying that you are doing this John Cantelo - you simply posted the article for others to review) is quite discriminatory to the majority of hunters who follow laws and rules designed to encourage ethical, conservation-minded hunting.

JE

Well said.

Lee
 
I wouldn't disagree with any of your points, but as the report came from an organisation calling itself the ethical consumer I thought using the word in the thread title was sensible (although as a precaution, which seems not to have worked, I added inverted commas). I've certainly learnt that some here have heightened sensibilities on the topic of hunting so that what was a discussion rapidly became a minefield!


John, it is a minefield. To understand the reasons it's a touchy subject you have to understand there is a culture gap here. There is a very vocal minority, mostly in big cities who would wish to see hunting abolished. Last I recall reading something like 90 % of the population doesnt hunt, but 70% of our citizens support hunting rights. There have been several bills put forward that would abolish hunting, they all failed for lack of support. In response to those bills nineteen states now guarantee the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions.
 
I wouldn't disagree with any of your points, but as the report came from an organisation calling itself the ethical consumer I thought using the word in the thread title was sensible (although as a precaution, which seems not to have worked, I added inverted commas).

I don't disagree with the way you worded the title, but rather that "Ethical consumer" structured their article this way; it gives the wrong impression to many who are already unfamiliar with hunting.

JE
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top